Defense attorneys' concerns about the competence of adolescent defendants

Abstract

Research indicates that a sizable proportion of adolescent defendants have difficulty understanding and participating in legal proceedings against them, and may be incompetent to stand trial. To examine attorneys' experience in defending adolescents with competence-related difficulties, 214 juvenile attorneys were surveyed. Findings indicated that attorneys have doubts about the competence of approximately 10% of adolescent defendants, and that they find these cases particularly challenging to defend. Most attorneys appear to recognize that developmental factors may contribute to adolescents' competence-related difficulties, and believe that the law should accept developmental immaturity as a basis for incompetence findings. In approximately half of the cases in which attorneys had doubts about competence, attorneys did not request a competence evaluation but instead made other efforts to address competence issues, such as by teaching adolescents about legal proceedings and further involving their parents. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Ten Year Research Update (2001–2010): Evaluations for Competence to Stand Trial (Adjudicative Competence)

“…Results of the Viljoen et al () study suggested that judges were accepting of developmental immaturity as a factor to consider, but tended not to see it as a sole basis for incompetence. In contrast, Viljoen, McLachlan, Wingrove, and Penner () found that defense attorneys believed that developmental immaturity should be considered a basis for incompetence when that is the reason that a youth lacks relevant capacities. (Many states now recognize developmental immaturity as a potential reason for incompetence to stand trial: Larson & Grisso, .)…”

Knowledgeable Judges Make a Difference: Judicial Beliefs Affect Juvenile Court Transfer Decisions

“…Then, one week later, all judges were mailed a postcard reminding them to complete the survey. A 37.2% response rate was obtained from the judges, which is a response rate equaling or exceeding that obtained in recent studies surveying lawyers or judges (see Brannen et al., 2006; Viljoen, McLachlan, Wingrove, & Penner, 2010). Possible selection biases relating to demographic variables and years of judicial experience were controlled for by using them as independent variables in the regression analyses.…”

Attorney and lay beliefs about factors affecting jurors' perceptions of juvenile offender culpability

“…Viljoen and her colleagues have done several studies examining attorneys' and judges' perceptions of juvenile offenders (Viljoen, McLachlan, Wingrove, & Penner, 2010;Viljoen & Wingrove, 2007;Viljoen, Wingrove, & Ryba, 2008). Attorneys believe that an adolescent's developmental maturity is an important factor to take into consideration when he is being tried in juvenile court (Viljoen & Wingrove, 2007;Viljoen et al, 2008); however, attorneys rarely ask for competency hearings for juveniles even when they suspect that adolescents' maturity level may affect their competency to stand trial (Viljoen et al, 2010).…”

“…Attorneys believe that an adolescent's developmental maturity is an important factor to take into consideration when he is being tried in juvenile court (Viljoen & Wingrove, 2007;Viljoen et al, 2008); however, attorneys rarely ask for competency hearings for juveniles even when they suspect that adolescents' maturity level may affect their competency to stand trial (Viljoen et al, 2010). Additionally, Viljoen and her colleagues found that attorneys and judges thought juvenile offenders' maturity level was not as important to their competency to stand trial as was the presence of mental illness (Viljoen et al, 2010). We view it as important to also examine the correspondence between attorneys' and jurors' views, as well as whether jurors' actual decision-making corresponds to their stated views.…”